Nasima Khatoon v. The State & Anr

Delhi High Court · 21 Feb 2018 · 2018:DHC:1295
Rajiv Shakdher
W.P.(C) 1658/2018
2018:DHC:1295
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an attachment order, holding that a registered General Power of Attorney does not prima facie establish ownership to set aside such an order.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 1658/2018 Page 1 of2
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
pronounced on: 21.2.2018
W.P.(C) 1658/2018 & CM No.6824-25/2018
NASIMA KHATOON ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Richa Singh, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Jawahar Raja, Advocate for R1 and R2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a writ petition, whereby, challenge is laid to order dated 28.11.2017, passed by the SDM, Seelampur.

2. Record shows that ICICI Lombard has obtained the impugned attachment order. The attachment order is directed against the son of the petitioner. The petitioner, who is the mother, claims to be the owner of the subject property. The ownership claim is based on a General Power of Attorney. According to the petitioner, the said Power of Attorney is registered.

3. A perusal of the Power of Attorney shows that it is executed in favour of the petitioner only to manage, sell, mortgage etcetera, the 2018:DHC:1295 W.P.(C) 1658/2018 Page 2 of[2] subject property. There is no reference to any consideration in the Power of Attorney.

4. The claim of the petitioner that she has title and is the owner of the property, prima facie, is not made out.

5. Writ Petition is, accordingly,dismissed.

6. The petitioner, however, will have liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies to establish her title and ownership, albeit, in accordance with law.

7. Consequently, all pending applications are closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FEBRUARY 21, 2018 c